dew-covered spider web of condensed thoughts

The Primary Function of Marriage?

This is sort of like a part two to my previous post, but it is actually more like a part three or four, or even five (who knows? I’ve lost count) in an ongoing discussion about asexuality and rape culture. Originally I proposed the idea that sexual coercion and marital rape might be a fundamental human rights issue for asexual discourse to focus on in a comment directed towards the A Life podcast team, who seemed to misunderstand my point and were quite dismissive of the idea. I believe Henrik said something like “Well if you’re going to get raped, then don’t get married.” (I’m not going to go through the podcast to find the actual quote, but if you want to do it, you can find it here. Keep in mind I am also not up-to-date on the more recent podcasts, including the one about asexuality and marriage.) I was kinda pissed off that he would say something like that, because it ignores the reality of the situation that many asexuals are in, and implies a callous attitude towards my own mother’s situation (and mine by proxy). (Why should she have been expected to predict that my father would spiral into alcoholic depression and choose to take it out on the whole family? How could she have known? I think this is called “blaming the victim.”) I’m pointing Henrik’s comment out because it provides context for what I am about to say, and you will see the reason why in a moment.

For one, this is not so because “marriage is for procreation”. We have long since decoupled sexuality from procreation, thanks to reliable contraceptives. Some Christian groups might promote this, but the reality is different. Relationships involve sex, because one of their functions is to produce spaces where we can have legitimate sex. There are other matters of bonding, belonging, emotional and economic connections, but almost all of those are related to sex in some way. And, I would argue, its good, even necessary to have some kind of institution that does this. Most people want sex and they need some way to satisfy this desire in a socially acceptable way, that is without suffering social sanctions. They do this be having an institution (or several) in place that produces legitimate space for sex. This institution in modern, western society is called the (romantic) relationship. It’s vital for its functioning, that it implies sex (at some point, in some way, details are open to debate).

Yes, social institutions do have coercive force. But this is just a matter of being social beings. Requirements of social spaces like reducing of complexity, producing reliability and stability and encouraging cooperation cannot be had unless we somehow make each other conform to some regular forms of behavior. And to some degree, this is always coercive.
This was a central point in my article on seduction.

The easy answer would be to say that if you don’t want sex, don’t have romantic relationships. If you want other things that romantic relationships produce, find someone who will do that with you without wanting sex. If you do want to participate in a full blown romantic relationship, find a way to communicate with your partner, and find a partner with whom you can communicate your problems on the matter, maybe you will find a solution, maybe you won’t.
Queer people (in the widest sense) have solved the problem of heterosexual monogamous vanilla relationships being unfit for their desires by creating queer interaction spaces where they have set up their own institutions regarding sex. A good solution if there ever was one. I’m not sure if there are enough asexual people for this to be workable, but it makes sense to me at least.

So, I think that attacking that the institution of romantic relationships involves sex is not a good move. Alternative institutions would be better. But any institution requires a semi-stable group of regularly interacting people in order to bring it forth. Then, the requirements of sociality as well as the desires of the individuals can be satisfied.

I posted a response here, and then ignorantarmies posted a reply here. To which I posted the following comment:

I see where you are coming from and I understand that people have different reasons for getting into romantic relationships/marriages. I didn’t mean to imply that people DON’T get into them as a way to have legitimate sex. I also know that people get into romantic relationships without being in love with their partners, in many cases. Usually, I believe this is a temporary thing; either people intend to get into such relationships for sex, or to solve the problem of loneliness. Or, they may see the person as being compatible and give it a try even though they’re not crazy about the person, to see if love grows over time (this I have done myself, with the effect that I did end up falling for the person). Some may just settle.

Of course people have different reasons for getting into romantic relationships: that was actually my point. I probably should have drawn my it out, made the effort to articulate it to a more definite conclusion, instead of leaving it mostly unstated. Sorry for the confusion.

My issue with your original comment was that it seemed far too dismissive of other reasons that people may get into relationships, and seemed to imply support for the idea that upon getting married, a person is automatically assumed to be giving consent to sex with their spouse under every circumstance (i.e. that there is or should be no such thing as marital rape).

People get married for lots and lots of reasons. The fact of it is, not all married couples have sex or ever intend to have sex. Marriage legitimizes a relationship in the eyes of society, and gives a number of legal benefits. That’s why people fight so hard for gay marriage. And that’s why some asexual couples also get married.

I’ve been in a romantic relationship with a fellow asexual before, and it kinda sucks, because the vast majority of people are not willing to acknowledge it as a “real relationship” just because there is no sex involved. My sister was the worst about it; she would belittle me for it constantly, saying that I was too stupid to realize that what my ex and I had was “just friendship.” Few people would just accept it and be happy for me. I almost always had to try to prove that it’s possible first.

Now, you say that marriage “does not work” for asexuals, but are you aware that asexuals DO get married and that it CAN work for them? Getting married would FORCE society to recognize that there really IS a strong bond between two asexuals beyond “just friendship” (although I would contend that friendship is and should be a huge part of a romantic relationship, there is also usually a different kind of feeling to it), at least on some level.

So should asexuals not get married then, just because ONE of marriage’s functions is to provide a space for “legitimate” sex (in the eyes of Christians)? Should asexual couples just avoid that social institution altogether even though it would certainly be beneficial both legally and socially? That seemed to be what your comment was implying. It also seemed to lack awareness of the actual situation that many asexuals are in, with regard to marriage.

My discomfort was never with the idea that some people get into relationships just so they can have legitimate sex, although of course that doesn’t appeal to me. It’s deeper than that. It was because the way you phrased your comment reduced my experience of romance to something that apparently does not count as a “real” romantic relationship. It seemed to imply support for a system that would discount my experiences and enforce my subjugation, should I ever get into a situation where I might be raped by the person I had married. Although this is not likely to happen to me, because I have an unfortunately deep understanding of domestic violence and how to avoid it, as well as a good understanding of my sexual orientation and how to deal with sex in a positive way, there are lots of asexuals out there who did not realize they were asexual until AFTER they had gotten married, because they were waiting until after marriage to deal with sex. They just operated under the assumption that they were heterosexual and would enjoy sex when they had it, but then found out that was not the case. Should they be legally obligated to provide sex for their spouse, in the event that they discover that it is detrimental to their well-being? Should their pain be ignored? Should they be silenced just because one of the functions of marriage is to provide a space for legitimate sex?

I don’t think we should see marriage as primarily a way to provide a space for legitimate sex precisely for that reason. That is one function, sure. But to reduce it to that one single function, when there are plenty of others, is very dangerous, especially if it is used to support laws that discount the possibility of marital rape. I don’t know if that is what you meant to say in your comment or not, but that is what it seemed to imply. I think we ought to acknowledge ALL the reasons why people get married, and make laws based on every possibility, rather than reducing it to one “primary” function. Because all that really does is serve to enforce sexual-normativity, and silence the minority of people who DON’T want to have sexual marriages.

Another thing I want to point out is that what is culturally considered the “primary” reason for marriage changes as culture does, and enforces dominant cultural attitudes. At one time the “main functions” of marriages WERE considered to be procreation and economic union. Now they are not, but those are still functions of marriage, and for some people they are even the PRIMARY function. I know a couple who have been together for years without getting married, but plan to do so when they get pregnant. Lots and lots of people get together just so their kids will be legitimate, and lots and lots of people stay together just for the kids. It’s not accurate to say that the primary function of their marriages is to provide a space for legitimate expression of sexuality.

That is why I do not think your position is justified.

I realized after I posted that comment that I mainly refer to marriages throughout, but the original comment actually said that asexuals should stay out of romantic relationships, not just “don’t get married.” Which is even more offensive, because it does imply that asexual romances don’t count as romances, just like my sister used to explicitly tell me over and over and over again. There’s not really a serious adjective yet to describe what kind of comment this is (“asexophobic” sounds pretty silly), but it is definitely a product of sexual privilege and seeks to enforce sexual-normativity. Asexual romance is being erased from possibility, at least in the minds of the majority. That has got to change.

Asexuals really don’t face much discrimination, if by that you mean outright hostility (although I have heard there has already been a case of a hate crime committed against a woman specifically because she is asexual). But people Other the hell out of us, and refuse to acknowledge our existence even when they have been made aware that such a thing exists. Why should we be barred from having “romantic” relationships (in quotes because I think that what’s really being referred to is just a synonym for sexual relationships) or from having our relationships called romantic and honored as such even though they would fit that description perfectly, just because we aren’t having sex? There’s a word for that, you know: it’s called marginalization.

I don’t want to be too harsh, now. This person probably did not realize why the comment was so offensive, and did not mean for it to be. But it comes from a place of privilege and that should be pointed out. I point it out to the asexual community instead of just leaving it as a comment because of attitudes like Henrik’s which parallel this to some extent (and I think are also indicative of another kind of privilege: that of not being affected by domestic violence). It is certainly an option to create a new kind of alternative relationship space for asexuals to exist in, and I absolutely applaud efforts to do that. (David Jay is doing a great job of exploring these options over at Love From the Asexual Underground, for anyone interested.) But not all asexuals want to do that. Some of us want to get married, and some of us already are married before we know that asexuality actually exists. Creating a new relationship style is fine, but creating a whole new social institution with the same legal and social benefits of marriage would be extremely difficult or (more likely) completely impossible, and would also fail to address the issues of those who are already married and stuck in a painful situation. Therefore, instead of dismissing the possibility of a violent marriage because it is “not relevant” or “does not apply” to most of us who have already connected to the asexual community, I firmly believe we ought to fight to make marriage a friendlier space for our fellow asexuals (and everyone else) to inhabit.

I’m going to finish this post off with a link: via Womanist Musings, here is a call for submissions for an anthology of personal essays dealing with queerness and sexual violence. If you have had any kind of experience with sexual violence and asexuality, I would urge you to submit something for this. I think it is very important that we bring these issues to light!

Completely agreed. Well done for speaking out about this, I’ve seen several asexuals who insist that asexuals can’t have real relationships, or even hinting that ‘that’s what you get’ when you mix with those vicious, ignorant sexuals, and that’s nothing but ignorance, persecution and victim-blaming.

Also; didn’t your typeface used to be larger? I had to rest my eyes halfway through (though, now I think of it, I could have just enlarged the text like a sensible person).

Ouch. I didn’t know they were any asexuals who were quite that bad! It’s sad that some of us buy into the idea that our romances aren’t real. I also find that idea kind of funny… because if it’s true, then the fact that I’m in a ROMANTIC relationship, even if that relationship is totally sexless, would apparently be grounds for saying that I’m not asexual.

And yeah, it was larger before… I thought it was way too big before, so I made it smaller. I might make it a little bigger later on. I hope it hasn’t caused you any serious eyestrain! :(

Ok, so there’s no-one who actually says it in those words. But, back when I was on AVEN, it didn’t take too long perusing the Sexual Friends and Allies forum to find someone who said pessimistically “Relationships between asexuals and sexuals NEVER work. Asexuals are just kidding themselves”, and some seemed to say it in a way which implied ‘sexual people are animals’, or even sometimes that asexuals were betraying the identity by falling in love outside it. They said this pretty much whatever the situation was, from “My partner’s just cheated on me” to “My married partner says they’re asexual. Advice please?”, to “I’m in a long-term, happy relationship with a very supportive sexual.”

It’s a defeatist and, to be honest, denialist outlook, but some people still have it, and refuse to see that it’d be better making space for asexuals in the romantic relationship than it would be to endorse all the worst things about them, just to keep asexuals away.

Ah, yes. Those nasty people. Attitudes like that are a big part of the reason why I left AVEN. I hope that such ideas become a lot less common over time but sometimes I feel like we might be fighting a losing battle on that front. :/

“…I think that what’s really being referred to is just a synonym for sexual relationships.”

I think that’s a key point when it comes to talking about romantic relationships and asexuality with people who aren’t asexual. To me, that romantic relationships could be nonsexual is like a huge “DUH”. But I’m sure that for many people, the possibility has never crossed their minds. It’s never had to before. I think a lot of people use “romantic relationships” and “sexually monogamous relationships” interchangeably. For a lot of people, maybe they are interchangeable, but obviously not for asexuals. We have a strong idea of what “romance” is when it’s separate from sex. It’s easy for me to forget that a lot of people don’t.

Also…since when was marriage thought of as a place where people had lots of sex? I thought there was the idea that sex dwindled once a couple was married. Obviously that’s a stereotype but I don’t think anyone outside of people who are pretty religious would get legally married just for the sex.

Also…since when was marriage thought of as a place where people had lots of sex? I thought there was the idea that sex dwindled once a couple was married.

I know, right? Haha. Well, I think maybe it wasn’t so much marriage that ignorantarmies was referring to as being primarily a space for sex, but just “romantic” relationships in general, so maybe that’s a mitigating factor. But I still don’t know what’s so romantic about a relationship that’s primarily an excuse to have “legitimate” sex. I know people who do it, and that’s fine for them, but…

And yeah, re: it’s never crossed their minds before. That just makes it more clear to me that it’s a product of privilege. Their idea of romance as being primarily a space for sex is the privileged one, it’s the dominant definition, and it’s seen as being the way things SHOULD be. So why should they concern themselves with everyone else whose relationships don’t reflect that? Everybody else is just doing it wrong, and that’s sad. If it doesn’t follow the ideal, it’s automatically seen as a defective relationship… or, not a “real” one.

In my social context, for the current generation, marriage IS for procreation and economic union. For the previous generations, marriage could be for expressing committed love and for a socially acceptable frame for sex, but for my generation these roles are for romantic relationships, and marriage’s become to its original essence: children and shared economy. When same-sex marriage were passed five years ago, the arguments were not committed expression of love of social acceptation of their sexual relationships, but joint adoption and succession rights. Raising children and economic issues. Having a Civil Code is an advantage discussing what is marriage for. The Code doesn’t conceive marriage as a haven for sex, but for monogamy. The Civil Code says that spouses must live together and be faithful, but not that they must sleep together, only that they must not sleep around. (Marital rape is an issue of penal law, and the Penal Code makes no exception for spouses.)

Other issue, is that the fact that a social institution creates a haven for certain activity, be sex or other, doesn’t mean that this activity is essential, and less that this activity is mandatory. Despite marriage is deemed a haven for raising children, children is not so essential that childless and childfree marriages are less-than-marriage. This a fallacy, and so obvious that, if this activities were mandatory, it would be no haven but the outworld would be the haven.

And for Henrik, I know whence he comes and his anti-romantic opinions are close to my aromantic ones. He said this because his opinion is “better not to marry” regardless the possibility of marital rape or any other issue.

Thanks for sharing your cultural perspective! I think it’s important to consider different cultural perspectives, because the “primary” function of marriage is different according to different cultures. And it is also different for different people even WITHIN the same culture, so I don’t think it is warranted to say that there is just one “primary” function of marriage.

I’m glad that you point out that it is a fallacy to think that, because it certainly is. The problem is that a LOT of people actually believe that fallacy, and in many many places the right of a person NOT to have sex with their spouse if they don’t want to is not protected. In a lot of ways we are still trapped by old ways of thinking left over from when women were considered the property of their fathers and then their husbands, with virginity as a way of protecting the certainty that any children conceived will be the husband’s child. I find it interesting, btw, that you mention that (if I am understanding this correctly), in your country there are civil penalties for being non-monogamous. But what about married couples who would prefer to be polyamorous? I’m not talking about cheaters, but would it still be considered a crime if all parties are willingly opening their marriage?

Re: Henrik’s opinion… I have to ask. It’s “better not to marry” for whom? For an aromantic, sure. But the point is, not all asexuals are like that. Some of us do want to get married, and in my opinion we should absolutely RESPECT that diversity, and respect everyone’s ability to make their own choices. Saying “just don’t get married” to EVERYONE in the community including romantic asexuals who want to get married is about the same as telling an asexual to “just go get laid.” And in the context in which he made that statement, it was also very ignorant and dismissive of the realities of abuse.

Adultery is a civil fault, not a crime. It was removed from the Penal Code in 1978 within or democratization process. The only real effect of adultery is a fault divorce, but no-fault divorce exists since the eighties.

I consider a problem for consensual polygamous people. Probably their legal device is redefining “faithful” in their matrimonial capitulations in order to override the by-default definition. Anyway, only the spouse can denounce adultery, not a third person.

Fantastic post. I saw his post, and I immediately saw the privilege and ignorance coming through, but didn’t have the patience to sift through it all.

I wholly disagree that the primary function of marriage is related to sex at all. In fact, I see the primary function of marriage as “legitimizing” a relationship in the eyes of society, but also the legal benefits. Because, really, a relationship is no more or less legitimate once people possess that piece of paper.

Romance/romantic relationships mean different things to different people. Some people that aren’t asexual get involved in relationships with little to no sex! And that’s what works for them. Who are we to define someone else’s relationship for them, or tell them that their relationship is “real” or “less than?”

About the Blogger

Elizabeth is an asexual activist and snide social justice healer. She helps to run Resources for Ace Survivors, and you can find her writing there, at The Asexual Agenda, and in various other places. She is also an atheist, a Pokemon master, and certified cat furniture.

Other Recommendations

Comment Rules

Comments are moderated. Please follow these rules, or your comment will be removed.

No harassment, hate speech, bigotry, or intolerance of any kind. This includes intentionally spreading false information for the purpose of fomenting hate.

No victim-blaming, oppression olympics, or ranking different forms of victimization. Never use someone else’s experience as a rhetorical tool to help you make a political argument.

Do not offer unsolicited advice. Do not tell other people how they are feeling. Do not play armchair psychologist.

Do not reveal another person’s identity or share confidential information. Do not out people. Exercise care when linking to other people’s personal blogs.

Do not pose as anyone else. No sock-puppeting.

No compulsory sexuality. Do not imply that having sex is a goal that everyone should strive for. Do not suggest that anyone ever owes another person sex, in any situation.

No asexual elitism, and no sex-shaming. That means no suggesting that ace people are somehow “better than” non-asexuals, and also don’t say that sex is dirty or shameful. You can say that you FEEL that way, but not that it IS that way.

This is not a 101-level blog. Do your own research about the topic at hand before posting. It is not my job to educate you.

Do not ask me for relationship advice.

Please note that comments will close automatically after a post has been up for 90 days.